being a woman shouldn't be a pre-existing condition. these are all the things they're voting to happen. people want it. we can have the votes, but we need is action and compromise and -- guest: 50% of the money from obamacare would be going to insurance companies. insurance companies -- they would be giving subsidies to >> so there is no government-run health care? >> yes, there is government-run health care. the president could not deal with it in his own debate. he has no idea what his bureaucrats will do. these are not doctors. >> four hours away until the

2012 vice-presidential debate. it will happen here inside the norton center for the arts in danville, ky. they were the smallest institution ever to host a televised general election debate. it starts at 9:00 this evening. our preview coverage starts as 7:00. an hour-and-a-half debate. we will open up our phone lines. we will read your tweets and e- mail's. our cameras have been covering all the other activity going on at centre college.

all of that is under way. here is a live look, here on c- span. [no audio]

>> if you were the moderator, what questions would you ask? some of the postings -- where do you stand on a women's right to choose? why is not the united states drilling for oil? they have taken the oath to uphold the constitution. has either of them read it? go to facebook.com/c-span. you can post your questions and read what has been posted. earlier, the economic club of washington held a discussion on the election and would house and senate races to look out for and the strength and weaknesses of the candidates. we will year from several journalists -- we will hear from several journalists. this is 50 minutes.

>> i want to acknowledge the presence of three ambassadors that have a ride. an ambassador from sweden. thank you. the ambassador from belgium. thank you. the ambassador from the netherlands is here. thank you. thank you for coming today. we have an interesting panel to talk about the election and politics. i will introduce them briefly. we will then get into questions. on my left, charlie cook, the founder, editor, of "the cook political report." he is an expert on election campaigns. judy woodruff is the senior

correspond for pbs newshour. she has also been a senior cnn.spondent at nbc and mike allen is the chief political correspondent and white house correspondent for politico. he is the editor and writer of the playbook, a daily bible of what goes on in politics. chris wallace is the anchor of "fox news sunday." he has covered political campaign since 1980. he has been a correspondent at abc and nbc. i have dozens of years of political expertise between them. >> hundreds. [laughter] >> did not want to make anyone same old. before the debate between romney and obama, did anyone think

romney had a chance of winning this election? do you think there is a chance that obama could lose? >> a chance. president obama was ahead by 3- 5. romney's favorable swore under water. it was in bad shape in ohio, michigan, and pennsylvania. i would put it -- i would give obama the edge 60-40. watch ohio. >> watch ohio. there is a way for romney to win it. if he loses ohio, it is tougher for him. he has made that more possible by what he did in the debate. >> it is a jump ball. it is possible for romney to win. you look state-by-state, which is the reason that before the debate i would say that romney had little chance.

you saw him falling off a cliff and these key states. the romney people would tell you heartening support for the president, sought the support for romney. you are seeing the reverse. >> i have thought before hand there was a greater chance that romney could win because there was a series of state polls before the debate. they showed it was closing after romney had a bad september. it confirmed my belief that there is a lead on romney -- obama's failing because of the poor economic record that there is a moment to how committed obama people are. i agree with my colleagues. obama is a favorite. i would make it 55-45.

it is a difficult path to romney running the presidency. >> let's talk about the debate. based on your contacts, which would run for the president? was he not prepared? how did romney become a super debater? what happened at the white house and what happened with romney? >> i'd like to leno's line that only the nfl replacement rest obama won the debate. the president looked like a team that was overconfident, that did not fear or respect his opponent and did not take it seriously. the romney i saw was someone i had not seen in a long time. it was the romney i saw when he was running for the u.s. senate in massachusetts in 1994, a

pragmatic problem solver. i would have put him 35-45 period -- 35-40. he was for the first time being who he was as opposed to pretending some -- to be someone he was not. >> i keep thinking as a new yorker -- of the new yorker cover cartoon. that is what a lot of people came in be leaving. it is hard to understand what happened with the president. he has a cold, distant demeanor. that explains some of it. it seems to reflect that the president did not take it as seriously as a threat as he should have. the reason i am having a hard time understanding is that the campaign knew that romney is a great debater.

watch romney's debates in 1994 against senator canada -- kennedy. he comes prepared. he has a talking point. he looks at the camera. he makes an effective presentation. the idea that they did not know that was coming i have a hard time to understand. >> in addition, when you are president, and this is why ronald reagan lost his first debate and why president george w. bush lost his first reelection debate, it has been four years. anybody has gotten in your grill. nobody tells you what you think. he is not used to it. but the president almost seriously -- physically was taken aback as romney went at it. the romney folks knew months ago that the debate prep would be

the manhattan project of their campaign. that was where they would flip the switch if they had any possibility to. we saw a romney moved -- who his family had been encouraging the campaign to let him be more of himself, less scripted. we saw him all come out. he has to do with two more times. there are a number of countries that will tell you you only get one single attack. [laughter] to apologize to any of the ambassadors of our exalted -- insulted. charlotte -- charlie mentioned new jersey leno. it abused me hearing the obama's cams series of excuses. david letterman did the top 10 excuses.

number 5 was mitt romney's here is mesmerizing. number 2 was asked osama bin laden how i did. number one was it is bush's fault. i was not surprised that romney did as well as he did. he did 23 debates in the republican primaries that lasted 23 hours. when he comes with a breeze and he knows what he has to do, he is an effective debater. after newt gingrich took him down in south carolina, he came back in a debate in florida. this was a key moment as to whether romney would hold on and win the primaries are whether gingrich would blow by him. he took him bridge apart. i was not surprised with the high stakes he would do just

great. i cannot say i was surprised by obama. it reminded me of 2004 when i covered the first kerry-george w. bush debate. it was in coral gables, florida. it was the same thing. kerry came prepared. bush looks like he wanted to be anywhere else. he was talking about saddam hussein. kerry said saddam hussein did not attack us on a non 11. bush said i knew that. no matter how hard they are told to prepare, they are not used to as president someone talking to them like that in public or in private. they are used to dealing with the world posing problems that the idea that they will have to

sing for their supper fields beneath them. the matter how often they are told by their of pfizer's that is the deal, they do not get it to their heads. >> we were in boston and month ago. romney had done five mock debates in 48 hours. that was one month out. something that has been under appreciated is the performance of senator robb apartment, the republican of ohio, who was brought into play the role of obama. he has become a broader adviser. we have heard about how romney was only on the trail. portman field that. it gave him confidence. he has become a big adviser on messaging. we saw the package come together at the debate.

kress was their request by romney that he did not pick portman as his vice president? >> asked us in 12 hours. >> why did romney pick ryan? it was not someone many thought would be picked. portman was thought to be the favorite because he was from ohio. >> no one wanted to pick the only person at the top of the run the organization was mitt romney. he picked paul ryan for a simple reason and the same reason he went to the olympics. he wanted to. he runs his campaign. he is the ceo of the campaign. he is his own karl rove. it has cost him a lot of problems. he is the product, not the ceo. that is how he set it up. they feel good about the ryan

choice now. they gave republicans excitement. they needed it. if it costs them problems or florida, then it is a gap. >> i would do it differently. romney had had a bad summer. he had had a bad trip to europe. he came back. there was a discomfort in terms of where the campaign was and where they were headed. he wanted to shake things up. he did not think this was the time for a safe choice. there were two groups of people that were excited about the pick of paul ryan. hwang was conservative republicans and the others were congressional democrats. we could finally make the ryan plan a big deal. it did not end up being a positive or negative. it moved romney's numbers of about 2 points up and then dissipated.

it closed things up in wisconsin and settle down. it has been fairly neutral so far. nobody was going to move the needle. i do not think portman would have to the needle in ohio. >> i agree with charlie. at that point in the campaign, things have not been going so well. this was a way to excite the conservative base. he was the banner carrier for his budget. , and plan to attack the entitlements. this was a way to do it. it did momentarily create headaches for him especially in places where seniors are important. is there regret? no, you do not hear that from the campaign. >> there is a tension in the romney campaign and has been for

some time between -- and people believe he needs to run a safe campaign called the referendum idea. a referendum on barack obama. in died his economic record and present myself as a credible alternative. other people who want it to be a big campaign about big issues. this is one case that this was a romney decision, not a staff decision that romney won it hit at that moment. he has fluctuated. you saw this in the debate. to make it about the bigger issues in competing issues for the country. ryan helps him make the bigger argument about where to take the country. >> is the white house staff worried they could lose this

election? >> they are more server about it than they were before. when you talk to them, they say we always knew this would tighten up. we always knew florida, virginia would be tough. they knew north carolina would be out of reach. they are -- michelle obama was there a danger to ago. >> before unemployment drops below 8% and consumer confidence is up and the market is up. go back eight weeks ago. the obama campaign and white house were aware that they had a very ugly economy and the comments really do not get reelected under these types of economies. they have always come across as hungrier and more aggressive than the romney campaign. in almost every respect. they were ready for a fight from

the get go. >> this is what makes the debate so puzzling. the campaign has been hungry. look at the advertising they have been running. really smart advertising. >> who is running the obama campaign? david axelrod? obama? who is running the romney campaign? is the family intervening? >> from the white house, david pluft was the campaign manager in 2008 when they were underdogs. now the senior adviser in the white house. he has the last word on most things in the campaign and in the white house. ji messina, the cam -- the campaign manager in chicago runs an organization carried on the run inside, romney, ceo. when people look back at that campaign, a big factor people

will look at is how a this as a person could have created a campaign that has such fuzzy lines of accountability, a campaign management plan and strategy plan. the friends and family plan. what people close to governor romney say is that was deliberate. he likes having the last word. he likes having the old boston hands give their views. he would be the decider. >> who do you think is running the campaigns? >> i do not know today who is running the campaigns. the strategy, the messaging, and the advertising was stevens. he is a nice guy. it has been misguided from the first day.

if this is a referendum on president obama and the economy, there was a threshold level of comfort and trust that people had to have in the alternative. when the romney campaign decided to focus everything from as soon as they won the nomination on the economy without building him v upbuildingoters --, undecided voters knew nothing about mitt romney other than he was a rich businessman. they did not know if he was trustworthy. the romney campaign did not go ith testimonial ads in june to put the meat on the bone so he could reach the press hold level of comfort with voters. the obama campaign guns in. plant closings, layoffs,

outsourcing, income tax returns. they take a baseball bat in beat romney's brains in in the six or seven swing states. that is why his numbers were upside down. why they did that i do not know. i have been asking that question since june. it was a huge miscalculation. the romney campaign family intervention try to introduce him -- this is what they should have done back in may or june. >> mrs. romney and the oldest son of mitt romney went to the father and said to have to change things. >> for a long time, the family had wanted to take the charlie cook approach. chris wallace alluded to the fact that their big bet from the beginning was that all you had

to be was not obama. that turned out to be wrong. we can see in the different channels that they are doing now. you have to be yourself in addition to not being obama. >> let me explain. a lot of you do not know who stuart stevens is. he is a republican strategist from mississippi. he was a hollywood writer. he used to write "northern exposure." he has written a couple of books on eating in restaurants in europe. he took steroids at one point tuesday the affect it would have on his ability to do extreme sports. he has done in turn cycling. he is an interesting guy. he was first among equals in the

romney campaign for a long time. espouse his theory that this is anna election on the economy. all we have to do is be the other guy. there was frustration in the campaign post-nomination as a seemed not to work as well. romney fell further behind. with all due respect for mike, the family into riches story -- intervention story is oversold. there has been a change. stevens is still important. his star is being eclipsed. ed gillespie's star is rising. he is taking a more conventional route of a choice election. >> what will the president do

differently? how will romney prepare for a different obama? tonight, we have the vice presidential debate. what would you expect to see obama do differently? how will romney be prepared to do with that? >> the president will show up at the next debate. on the 16th, it is a week from today. it is a different format. it makes his job tougher. he will not -- this is a town hall meeting. it will be moderated by a cnn correspondent. there will be undecided voters: -- chosen by gallup. it is at hofstra university in new york. the job for the president is to make of that ground and reassure the people who are with him and the undecided voters that he is in this thing and he wants to be

reelected and he does have an argument to make against romney. he has to do it in the context of answering the questions of the voters. that is the structure of the debate. it is a trickier challenge. the third debate is foreign policy, which is another set of issues. >> the debate we will see a different obama and a different romney. but we see in the next debate? >> more of the eve project obama we saw on the trail that we are used to seeing. he held back. now he realizes he has to show that he wants it. he has to show he is hungry. george w. bruce uses said you have to ask the people for the vote. -- george w. bush is to say you have to ask the people for the boat. >> on the vice-presidential debate, will this be relevant?

do people care who the vice presidential debate winner is? >> there should be a disclaimer across the tv screen. this is for entertainment purposes only. it will not affect the election. it will be great fun to watch. if lloyd bentsen destroying dan quayle had no affect on the campaign, what will? >> you took my line. i was the moderator of that debate. it was the memorable line. in maine all the headlines the next day. it had no effect on the election. >> it will be fascinating. it will be more for entertainment and its impact on the campaign. the skies could not be less alike. joe biden is almost 70 years old. he is a classic, old school

liberal politician. paul ryan is 42 years old. he is the new, young gun conservative politician. there is a martian and a moon man. it will be entertaining to watch. i would not just write off that it will have no impact. let's say it is smaller than the last one. palin-biden got a bigger audience in the first obama- mccain debate because people were fascinated by sarah palin. see biden do is go after ryan's record and some of the budget proposals that he has made in the past in the ryan plans and say that is the road romney, not what you are hearing now. he will cut this program, racist

attacks. it will be interesting to watch how brian pivots off of that and says no, those were my ideas and those on offense and say your ideas do not work. that is why the economy is the way it is. >> was talk about the senate and the house. the senate is controlled by the democrats. republicans have tried to pick up enough seats to gain control. will the for republicans gain control of the senate? what is>> now i would put it ard 40% republicans taking the majority. olympia snowe retiring, todd akins becoming a biology instructor. hawaii and new mexico have not done as well as expected.

democrats have 53 seats, republicans, 47. republicans need a three-seat net gain. republicans are going to win nebraska foreshore. effectively, it is 52-48. republicans need two or three seats. there are 10 tossups, five democratic, five republican. the day after the election at lunch time i do not think we will be sure who will be a majority in the senate. i will give democrats a little edge, 10 races within three points, and one thing about senate races that happens, on election day, if you take out the wave elections like 2006, 2008, 2010, they do not just break down the middle. 2/3 tend to break one way or the

other and they tend to break one way more than the other. because >> it will be so close? >> you had missouri, montana, virginia, three states that decided the majority in the senate. 4.8 million people voted in those three states, and it was well into the day later before we knew who was gone to be the majority. >> this is congruent with charlie's math. we think whoever gets the white house look at the senate. to date you would say that favorite is obama. today you would say the democrats are likely to keep the senate. governor romney has a very narrow path, and if he wins the presidency, that means there is a wave behind him, there is some left to him, and that will bring

in a couple candidates to put them all won over. >> so you understand, charlie cook has forgotten more about the senate races than i ever knew. he is the bible in this. but of the reasons people beforehand a year ago thought the republicans were so sure is 2006 was a wave election and democrats won in a lot place where you did not expect them to win. the democrats work defending 23 seats and republicans only to end. by the nature of the math, it seems likely that the republicans would pick up seats and the democrats would lose. now i think the conventional wisdom is it is less than 50-50 that the republicans will take the senate. >> talk about the house for a moment, controlled by republicans.

democrats would have to pick up a lot of the seats. >> it is a long shot. democrats needed 25 seats. put that in context, at the end of world war ii, only once as the party in the white house picked up even 15 seats in an election yea and that is when johnson destroyed cold water. not even nixon in 1970 or reagan's 1984 slants like did they get out of single digits. they will probably lose 10 of their own seats. they have to gross 35 to net 25. >> assume if the president is really like that, he is dealing with a republican house. >> do you agree? >> i want to associate myself with the remarks of mr. cook. >> who will win in massachusetts? >> to win, brown has to get 100%

of the republican and independent vote, and one out of five democrats. 80 200,000 obama of boaters have to vote for republicans. i think it will be a close race, and i think scott brown is a terrific candidate, but it is a little uphill. it is close, but i would give warren a little bit of an edge. >> i cannot make a prediction, but i think warren is helped by the president in massachusetts. >> she seems to have a growing at, has raised more money than people thought. charlie suggested such a difficult state in a presidential year. in 2004, it was the bluest stake in the nation except d.c. massachusetts highest democratic

percentage. very difficult, and brown has been hurt by the debate. it is difficult to debate someone a different gender. the biden people were telling he feels a lot less pressure this time. he thought it was hard to go against palin to be a purple rightly deferential. scott brown has had that problem. he refers to her as professor warren, he had a nice-guy image going for him that he has lost perry >> a projection about the biggest upset you see in the senate, the most unlikely been by somebody? >> the biggest surprise is connecticut, where mcmahon is running ahead of murphy. given she has spent $50 million in a great republican year and

came up short, it is as if men voters have gotten over the wrestling thing. it is like old knees. they have moved on. -- it is like old news. >> they have moved on. >> she is running a different campaign than last time. the other race is carmona in arizona. he is running as the democratic candidate. we do not know -- we cannot predict he will win, but he has made it much more of a race. >> akin is a surprise, because everybody thought he was dead you had people like karl rove and the nash a republican senate campaign committee drop him and has not put a dime into the campaign, and people like mitt

romney say he should drop out, and people thought he would drop out and if he did not he would drop off the cliff, and it is a reasonably close race. i would still back on mccaskill winning, but it is not a walk over people thought. there is a great political philosopher james carville who described philadelphia in the east, pittsburgh in the west, and alabama in between. >> it is not a surprise, but the other senate race, in virginia tim kaine very strong. that is a real problem for mitt romney. he needed a stronger torch allen to bring him along. the race is a tossup, but kaine looks strong and that is a real

war rate to romney. >> the house will state republican, the senate, democratic. do you expect any leadership changes in either the senate or the house bo? >> no change. only way in the house you would see a change is if republicans -- and i do not think this will happen -- if republicans lost more than 15 seats in the house, boehner could have a problem. it is gone to be more single digits, so i do not think he will have a problem. >> whoever is president will have to deal with the link out -- a lame duck. let's assume, is reelected. what do you think will happen then? " romney elected, what will happen? >> so much depends on who is elected, what the margin is, who will take which senate seat.

i see a holding action in the land up with nothing definitive unless the president or romney comes in with a convincing win and has the kind of moral authority that comes with a wave election, and right now i do not think we see that. chris said maybe it could happen -- mike said maybe it could happen for romney if all the stars are in the lineup. >> my guess is for all the talk of a thistle cliff it will just be pushed off -- talked of the fiscal cleft it will be pushed off for six months. boehner said the other day he had a problem with the idea, will be a big change in the makeup of the house or the senate, and do you want the old house and senate, unrepresentative of what the country has just voted, making laws is contrary to what the new

house and senate will do? most likely for all the fears -- lord knows we will cover it on cable -- the fiscal cliff gets put off. >> we do see the likelihood of a deal to make a deal, there are to complications, and there is a lot of incentive for them markets. there will be a lot of incentive to reassure the markets, but the two impediments to that, the white house intends to play real hardball on the top rate spirit they feel by putting it off, they lose their leverage. they do not plan to extend all that. there will be a fight. second, if obama wins, a factor

will be paul bryant will be back in the house -- paul ryan be back in the house and he will be running for president in 2016. ryan 1 not want to make a deal that raises revenue and taxes, and conservatives listen to him. that is another hurdle to this deal. >> areas pressure on both sides to come together. the gang of six senators have been meeting the last few days at mount vernon. there is pressure to get something done. they note the country is on the edge of its seat. business, corporate america, no better than anybody, david, to get this figured out. >> they are meeting in mount vernon to get inspiration for president washington? >> you mentioned 2016.

not too early for washington. >> 2020? >> let's assume obama is reelected. who is the likely democratic nominee in 2016? >> it is either going to be hillary clinton or -- everybody thinks she will give it a serious look. nobody knows for sure. terry mcauliffe is out there -- what do you think? who else? >> andrew cuomo? >> i think he will look at that. >> and martin o'malley. >> there will be no private equity person running again. if romney is not elected, who will be the presumptive nominee for the republicans, 2016?

presumptive? the >> you will have to fight marco rubio. there is a long bench. we think chris christie will also go for it. the order bobby jindal already working for it. >> let's assume obama is elected, and clinton will step down as secretary of state, so who will be the next secretary of state and treasury if obama is elected? if romney selected, who will be secretaries of state and treasury? >> susan rice. i think her chances were greatly diminished by her performance on the five sunday shows a couple of weeks back, and that will come back to bite her in a confirmation. >> i thought she was relating

what she had been told by the intelligence community? >> the increasing information is that that was not what the intelligence committee said, and this is what i do not understand. she came on my show and i asked her about here is what the president of libya said, a preplanned attack, and she continued to tell the story of a spontaneous demonstration. we now know, at 6:30 the day before yesterday, the state department's had a conference call in which they told a few select reporters that there was no spontaneous -- there was a protest at all, that ambassador stevens had gone out into the street with a diplomat with whom he had dinner at 8:30, said goodbye to him, and a report from the embassy was there was

nothing there, nothing was going on, there had never been a demonstration, and at 9:30 these aren't people came in and attack. not a word about it in yesterday's "the washington post." how does she get on the air, five days later and talk about a spontaneous protest that never existed? >> was a fog of intelligence -- completely clear -- >> turned out yesterday that the person in charge for security was on the phone in real-time on tuesday night, the 11th, which the people in the installation in libya, and was told there was no protest before. >> to bolster his point and why this will be a story, in the state department briefing they said a crucial addition to this

is they had never thought it was a spontaneous eruptions, that ambassador price talked about. which is different than the fog of intelligence, the original excuse. >> the next secretary of state will be if obama is reelected -- >> not susan rice. >> senator john kerry pwould bea logical choice. >> and from the is elected? >> in the romney camp, is an array of opinion, and he is likely more to go with john bolton, but we do not know.

>> just mentioned as a possibility for a state, senator rob portman, who became such an important adviser. he has white house experience, and would be reassuring. >> one of the interesting stories, if romney is elected, and it sounds on to say -- sounds odd to say, the question is who is the real romney? he is not running at that moment for president, and we did not know, and there will be a battle in state between the neocons and a foreign-policy realists and whether it is a zellick or john bolton, we will find out where romney tilts in

terms of who he selects for his cabinet. >> the republican foreign-policy establishment, the main old- style, have been comfortable with most of the things romney has said in the area of foreign policy, that the neocons have had a more dominant voice. the question is, where is the real romney, if elected, would he go back toward the scowcroft view of foreign policy or the neocons? >> with 26 days to go, what would you project is the electoral vote for the winner? many electoral votes? 270 is needed to win. >> 304 obama. >> i will not say who.

i will say 295. >> 305, 320, i think there will be a tipping point. there will be a clear winner. it will be an early tonight. as somebody wins in the virginia, it will improve in ohio, colorado. >> went charlie gave his number, that is the perfect over-under number. will take the over as well. >> there will be exit polls this so when will we really know? how long will it take before you actually go on the air and say who the winner is? >> will not say who the winner is until we protect them

winning the states with 2 minutes of the. in 2008, it was clear that obama had won, but it was 9:00 at night. we have to project -- which cannot just say he won virginia so we knew at that point it was over. >> the polls have the clothes in the west coast and you know it is likely -- polls have closed in the west coast and you know it is likely that one candidate has won? >> exit polls are still polls and a -- and if a race is within a point or two, it does not tell you more than what you already know, and with people voting early, where they have to take a regular telephone polel, four states within a point or

two, you have to wait. >> i have time for a couple questions. any questions? first one right here. >> may have misunrstood, but no one mentioned jeb bush for the next time around, and he seems like the strongest of the lot. >> i think governor bush is an enormously competent guy. this problem is his last name, and i have the impression that maybe every three or four months he pulls out a geiger counter oil and holds the thing to his last name, and as long as it goes [static] he turns it off and put away, and if he is still young enough and it does not happen, he will run. it is what it is. >> any other comments on that?

questions? one more question back here and that will be the last question. >> do you think all the money that has been raised and spent is going to be a significant determinant of who wins? >> i do not. it raises a whole other question about do we want money to be that big a factor in american politics, whether it determines the outcome or not? it is a much bigger factor in the senate and congressional races where money can completely tilt the outcome, because folks running are not as well known. the presidential, there are so many other factors at play. it is not the money is not important at all, it is not just the most important. >> i do not think money will be a factor between now and election day because both sides will have enough money to get their messages out. i'm talking exclusively about

the presidential race. there was a point where money was enormously important, and that was between april and august. what happened -- and it was not covered enough -- is romney to a large degree ran out of money because he had spent all his money in the primaries. there was a lot of superpac money, but he did not have a lot of money, and obama had been sitting on his war chest, much bigger than romanis, and the reason that obama overwhelmed ronnie with those ads between april and august, when charlie said he was able to demonize him as an out of touch plutocrat, because of the fact he had a huge advantage in money and they could not start spending general election money till he had literally not only been nominated, but accepted the nomination in late august. that was one place where money was important.

>> january to april, the republican nomination went a lot longer than it would have because there is a business group, mezzanine financing, in the way of superpacs provide money to send portman, gingrich, when he needed it. it kept the republican nomination contest a lot longer than it would have. >> i want to thank our 4 forur panelists. one photo.

>> coming up, in three hours, the vice-presidential debate in kentucky. you do not see the portrait of fred vincent staring down, his portrait called dead fred is an icon at centre college. our coverage gets underway at c- span in just over an hour, 7:00 eastern, with our preview program. it will be moderated by abc correspondent martha raddatz. all that beginning at 7:00 on c- span, c-span radio, and c-span .org. our cameras have been all over

the college today. here inside the media hall as journalists prepare for tonight's debate. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

reporters preparing for the debate tonight inside the norton center for the arts at danville, kentucky's, centre college. lots of responses to day. read more questions at facebook.com/c-span. we recently examined their debating styles this is an hour.

>> from the u.s. constitution, the vice president of the united states shall be president of the senate, but will have no vote unless they be equally divided. in case of removal of the office -- the president, the vice president shall become president. the office of the vice- presidency an afterthought, a compromise, but all eyes on joe biden and paul bryant this week as they debate. joining us here is donovan martin who has been writing about this debate. how important is this debate and light of what we saw last week in denver? >> you touched on the biggest reason why this debate could be more important than the undercards are, as there is oppression on biden to deliver can change the narrative from what we have had the last few days, which is, given obama's

weak performance in denver, mitt romney is seeing a bump in the polls and in some states is eating nearly ahead. by dint will try to turn this around -- -- biden will try to turn this around, and the burden is on ryan to keep romney's bounce here alive for a few more days until the president and mitt romney face off again next week. that is the biggest reason i think that is a big reason why this does matter. this is the first or maybe the only campaign where one side is campaigning against the policies of the other party's president as much as they are against the presidential nominee. paul ryan and his budget proposals are a flash point in this campaign, so it is unique

in that sense because by then -- biden will be hammering paul ryan in the gop ticket on his proposal and on long-term fiscal issues. >> you framed it this way -- in 2008 gentlemen joe debated sarah palin, and you are wondering if scranton joe will show up for tonight's debate. >> sources i talked to on both sides of the aisle say this will be an aggressive, forward-a leading joe biden, someone who will really want to frame a negative message against romney and ryan -- aggressive, forward- leaning joe biden. which the president did not do that well last week or did not mention at all. i am thinking of issues like the automotive bailout, social security, ryan's proposal on that, the medicare issue, the 47%, and that mitt romney made. we were stunned that obama did

not mention that week. and of course, mitt romney's income taxes and how he made his money. those are all issues we will hear from joe biden on, and it is different than what biden did four years ago. facing sarah palin, the biggest challenge then was not to patronize her, not to bully her, certainly, to try to accord her a certain degree of respect. this is a different time, and paul ryan is a very different opponent. >> that has already been what some are calling the prebuttal in which both nominees try to set expectations for the debate. let me share with you what paul ryan said on the fox news channel late last month. >> he is fast on the cuff. he is a witty guy. he knows who he is, and he has been doing this for 40 years. you will not rattle joe biden. joe biden has been on the national stage. he has run for president, and he

is the sitting vice president. i hope to offer people an alternative. joe is very good on the attack. joe is very good at trying to confuse the issues, so that the person who leaves the debate is confused about who stands for what. my job is to make sure they are not confused about what we stand for and what they stand for. >> you have said he was -- you have your stand and as the guy who won bush v. gore -- your stand-in. >> i hope joe biden shows up more than ted olson, because this is one of the best litigators in america. he has studied joe biden's record and style, and ted, as you know, is one of the best litigators in america and is pretty good at adapting to that. >> have you got lines already

prepared? >> i am not really a line guy. i'm a gut guy. i do not try to be anything other than what i am. i believe what i believe, and i do what i do, and i believe in the policies we are pursuing. at the end of the day, i am going to go in and be me. >> are you hoping joe biden makes one of his famous gas? >> i do not think he will. he is legendary for this, but that is not in this kind of situations. he is a very disciplined person when he speaks in these kind of situations. he does not produce gaffes in these moments. those are off the cuff, when he is out giving speeches. i am not counting on that. >> jonathan margin, as you listen to that, your thoughts about how preparations are going for both candidates -- jonathan martin. >> this has become a sort of autumnal right where each side

tries to play up the debate chops of the other, and the better it seems to get every four years. there is no question that joe biden -- 40 years in public life or washington politics -- and paul ryan, chairman of the house budget committee and someone who is a regular on the tv circuit -- they are both good debaters and skilled at when it comes to making the case for their views. i think this is a fairly evenly matched the date, certainly more than we saw four years ago with biden and palin and more than we saw at the top of the ticket with john mccain and barack obama. i think they are both trying to talk about the other as the best debater since cicero, as the cliche goes, but i think they will come out -- they are capable, and paul ryan makes a good point there. the joe biden affes we often hear about -- gaffes we often

hear about come when he is going off the cuff in front of an audience. he is very disciplined when he wants to be, and he was during the debates during 2007 and 2008. >> let me follow-up on something that chris wallace asked, which is about the preparation. olson is playing joe biden in the preparation, and chris van holland -- hollen is playing paul ryan. who is guiding them? >> paul ryan spent much of last week and certainly the weekend at the wintergreen resort near charlottesville, virginia, doing mock debate and watching videos of joe biden. he watched biden's debate with sarah palin four years ago and watched a foreign-policy speech from earlier this year. paul ryan watched many of the 2007-2008 democratic primary debates where biden is on the

stage. and then there is practice, scrimmaging. the former lieutenant governor of massachusetts has been playing the role of the moderator, and ted olson has been standing in as joe biden. i'm told he has really taken on the task with gusto, not only gotten down the policy views but the mannerisms of joe biden. as joe biden would say, literally gotten down the mannerisms, and he is really playing the role, according to a staffer who has been in the room. i think there has been film, there is reading, and there is actual mock debate. same thing with joe biden. he is in delaware all week. he did some sessions last month with chris van hollen as well, and he is a really smart pick

for the democrats because he knows ryan really well. he is his counterpart on the budget committee. he knows facts and figures as well as just about anybody in the house when it comes to the budget, and i think he is the only one that can give joe biden a good dry run. so that is how it is going down. >> let me get your reaction to what the vice president said last week on the campaign trail in iowa as he talked about his own debate preparation. >> all the dates are tough, you know? i mean, you get up there, and everybody -- you are able to sit -- like, i was watching the debate last night, and you can sit there and say, "i would have done that," or "i would have done this," but there is nothing like standing in front of 50 million, 60 million, 7 million people. i am looking front of it. the thing about congressman ryan is he has been straight forward

up until now about all the significant changes he wants to make. we have a fundamentally different view on a whole range of issues, so i hope it will be a good debate. >> how are preparations going? >> they are going well. what i have been doing mostly is, quite frankly, studying up on congressman ryan's positions on the issues, and governor romney has embraced, at least as far as i can see -- i do not want to say anything in the debate that is not completely accurate. for example, i have been saying to you all that governor romney has embraced the ryan budget. well, he has. he has gone back and said that he agrees with it. i want to make sure that when i say these things, i do not have the congressman saying, "no, i did not say these things." it is really getting a factual

predicate for everything -- well, not everything, but the key issues on which governor romney has spoken. >> the vice president making those comments last week in iowa. as we wrap up with you, what changed from denver to danville, kentucky, in terms of the obama campaign and approaching these debates? >> de are going to have much -- they will have much more aggression in joe biden than they had in the president last week. joe biden will be more of an efficient -- of a traditional attack dog. the clip you just played, the language that biden used about mitt romney embracing paul ryan's positions -- that gets to my earlier point about this is that unique campaign where the democratic ticket is running as much against the vice president's policy views as they are against the republican nominee, and you caught that in

what joe biden was talking about. they are going to want to hone in on a paul ryan budget. social security, medicare, and drive that home this week. >> jonathan martin, senior political reporter for politico, his work available online at politico.com, thank you for joining us. joining us here now is richard benedetto, professor at american university in washington, d.c. joining us from florida is robert watson, a professor from lynn university, which is hosting the final presidential debate later this month. thanks for being with us. watson, i want to begin with you -- do vp debates matter? >> yes, they do. if i could go back, i like jonathan's comments and agree with them completely. in terms of the presidential preparation, they also try to recreate the actual stage they will use in the debate to try to

make these folks as comfortable as possible. with biden going on the attack presumably in this debate, that is not an entirely new role for the vice president. all the way back to 1960 when vice was picked as ike's president, vice presidents have been used in that attack role. remember in 1976 how frustrated bob dole was one camp did not go -- when kemp did not go on the attack. even the most scholars would say people do not go to the ballot and vote based on the vice president, that is a little simplistic. voting for president is a big, complicated calculus. i liken it to a big gumbo -- a pinch of the vice president, a hint of the first lady, and use their in some policy. most would agree that lyndon johnson on the ticket probably

helped kennedy to win. we need to remember that four presidents have died of natural causes in office, four were assassinated, and richard nixon more recently resigned. that is nine vice presidents that ascended to the presidency from martin van buren won upon a time to george h. w. bush more recently -- martin van buren once upon a time to george w. bush more recently. in recent years, the vice presidency has become a dramatically different office than it was when it was created. there used to be a joke about the vice president -- a mother had two sons. one joined the navy and sailed the seven c's, and the other became vice president, and neither was ever heard from again -- one joined the navy and sailed the seven seas and the other became vice president, and neither was ever heard from again. the vice-president has been described as a warm bucket of spit, but it is alleged a

different word was used, perhaps one that rhymes with spent -- spit. you could trace it back to jimmy carter's pick of walter mondale. carter did not have a lot of foreign policy experience, and mondale being briefed enough on foreign policy issues. you saw the same with ronald reagan, another governor and an actor, who picked george bush i, who had great foreign policy credentials. we saw this with bill clinton and al gore, to the more recent pick of george w. bush and dick cheney. all those vice presidents were active players in the white house. you have seen that role with joe biden, who has played a very important role in afghanistan and back in the war in iraq, and it was biden who brought the national security and foreign policy credentials to the obama white house. he had served on the senate and dealt with these issues for

years and years. for those reasons, i think the vice presidential debate matters. plus, this year, it is so tight. this race could come down to, as we all know, a handful or one or two swing states and perhaps even a few counties in those swing states. every vote matters, and after obama's rather poor performance and ronnie's strong performance, i think the audience will be tuned in to this debate -- and romney's strong performance. >> let me pick up on the reference to walter mondale. the vice presidential debate is a relatively new phenomenon. they began televising the debates in 1976 with the vice president, but do they move the needle? do they influence how voters cast their ballots? >> we do not have empirical evidence or polling data to show that they have made a difference in elections or even moving the polls temporarily, even when there have been significant mistakes made by some of the

candidates, such as when dan quayle was not able to respond to the charge that he was no jack kennedy. but the thing is the atmospherics, continuing the narrative. pressure is on joe biden to do something that causes people to not think about what happened in the last debate with the presiden he has got to be able to get back on the offensive. he has probably been told a number of things that he has got to say, many of the things the president did not say, and, hopefully, they were -- i think the obama campaign is looking for the needle to be bounced a little bit, even their their -- even though there is no tradition that shows that the needle gets a bounce by the vice presidential debate. >> there are a couple of other things we want to get your reaction to. first is from the 2008 debate in which vice president, then

senator, joe biden discussed the role of the vice-president and also referenced then vice president dick cheney. >> you mentioned a moment ago that competition might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. do you believe, as vice president cheney does, that the executive branch does not hold full slate for the vice president, that it is also part of the legislative branch? >> our founding fathers selected the role of the office of vice president, and we will do what is best for the american people in tapping into that agenda and selecting an agenda that is cooperative and supportive with the president's agenda in that position. i agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility, and we will do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation. it is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as vp with mccain not

only as a governor but earlier on as a mayor, as an oil and gas regulator, as a business owner. it is those years of experience on an executive level that will be put to good use in the white house also. >> vice president cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we have had probably in american history. the idea he does not realize that article one of the constitution defines the role of the vice president of the united states -- he works in the executive branch. he should understand that. everyone should understand that. the primary role of the vice president of the united states of america is to support the president and give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the senate only at a time when there is a tie vote. the only authority the vice president has from a legislative standpoint is a vote only when there is a tie vote.

he has no authority read to the congress -- relative to the congress. the idea he is part of the legislative branch is an odd notion invented by cheney, and look where it has gotten him. it has been very dangerous. >> from october 2008. richard benedetto, the style and substance of that exchange. >> sarah palin was continuously trying to promote her credentials. one of the things she had been criticized for going into the debate was that she really was not experienced enough, but she was trying to polish and promote her credentials as being capable to take over the vice presidency. on the other hand, joe biden was taking the traditional political route of attacking the previous vice president of the party sarah palin represents by saying that this was a traditional tactic during the campaign, to

run against the bush administration. there is some evidence they are running against the bush administration even this time, but that time, that was a tactic to run against the bush administration, to attack cheney, and showed that vice president's style did not work. >> sarah palin is on your list you put together of the worst vice-presidential picks, along with tom eagleton, spiro agnew, dan quayle, and joe lieberman. to be fair, your list of the best picks include harry truman, lyndon johnson, george herbert walker bush, al gore, and walter mondale. can you elaborate briefly? >> yes. again, as your commentators have said, there really is not empirical evidence one way or the other as to whether the vice presidency move the needle or how much of a role this plays when the public votes, but i think it is clear that the vice

president matters, as we talked about earlier, and we have had some good picks that have contributed to the ticket and some not book -- not so good picks that harmed the ticket. eagleton, i think, was the worst in history when george mcgovern was running as a democrat. but it was a different day and age. back then, the president would be picked during the convention. there was not a lot of trauma. unlike today, where we know who the nominee will be well in advance of the convention, and it ends up being a four-day-long infomercial with a balloon drop at the end. there was arm wrestling, arm twisting, and old-fashioned haggling, and when the president was picked, they would pick the vp. back then, people really spent an hour talking about who the vice president would be. it was a different world. mcgovern went down a list. in fact, he was looking at people like ted kennedy, and he

ultimately ended up with eagleton and asked him if he needed to know about anything, and eagleton assured mcgovern that there was nothing there. after mcgovern picked him, it turned out he had multiple cases of electro shock therapy, which scared the country, and mcgovern had to jettison eagleton, so that was a double embarrassment. sarah palin did bring some things to mccain's ticket in 2008. fund raising, for example. the mccain campaign needed some windblown in its sales. it was attracting small crowds, kind of lethargic. when sarah palin came in, she was a rock star. the press could not get enough of her. when she came to florida right after being picked, there were 40-some-thousand people who showed up, like a rolling stones concert. unfortunately for mccain, sarah palin proved that she was not ready for prime time. for that reason, we know that when a person is one heartbeat away from the most important

office, it matters. we have had good ones and bad ones, and i think any way you look at it, joe biden was a good pick. he balanced the ticket by geography, by age. obama was not that experience. biden was very experienced. unlike most presidents and vice presidents, like kennedy and lbj, who for example did not get along, they did get along. most people would say the number one test of the vice president is on day one, would you be ready to serve as president should the bat-phone rang with bad news -- ring with bad news? everyone agrees that joe biden was ready. paul ryan brings what some of sarah palin brought. he is a bit of a rock star. he is seen as a policy wonk, a numbers guy. his positions on social security and medicare, while perhaps outside the mainstream, have

resonated very well with the far right of the party who has never been too trusting of mitt romney, the moderate. on the other hand, part of paul ryan's presence has been that it has been a distraction and the democrats have been making fair game by saying this is a guy who has pushed vouchers for social security, a guy with a pretty extreme position on abortion rights. anytime a vice president becomes the topic of conversation like that, it is not good for the presidential ticket. the best example of that is, much like was the case with mccain and sarah palin, when she started making mistakes and trying to go broke, as everyone called it, mccain had to put her on a short lease -- trying to go rogue, as everyone called it. mitt romney had to put paul ryan on a relatively short leash where he has backed off some of his early comments. i think we're going to see a very safe position by paul ryan because mitt romney had such a strong performance that game on.

the republicans are back on. they do not need ryan getting the romney campaign in trouble over important issues like social security, medicare, and abortion rights. >> i want to pick up on that point -- we do not have paul ryan it any recent debates, what we do have him from the c-span video library in a number of congressional hearings. here's his line of questioning th treasury secretary tim geithner from february of this year. >> this is what is frustrating to us -- your rhetoric never matches your actions. not talking about you personally, but the administration. >> i don't think that's fair, mr. chairman. >> you are showing us a budget to raise tax rates and add complexity to the tax code. >> the burden of governing, when you proposed a budget, as you know is -- >> this is your fourth one. you have never proposed what you said in four budgets. >> that's not true. what we've said is, "here's what

you have to do as part of a plan if you are going to distribute revenue in a fair way." what we proposed to do in this context is to modestly increase the effective rate on the top 2%. >> the marginal rate goes -- the top rate goes to 44.8%. >> the top rate, not the marginal rate. >> just assume that i might for the sake of argument, which this thing has been fact check a million times. the point is -- yeah, exactly -- the point is you are raising tax rates. in wisconsin, 99% of businesses file as individuals. >> we will only raise them if you decide to raise them and you decide not to compromise on tax reform. >> i want to be kind to everyone else -- these things you say you are not putting in your budget. this is your fourth budget. we hear all this happy talk about coming together, but we do

not see those proposals in black and white in your budget. >> one last thing -- we never claimed that his budget included a comprehensive proposal for individual tax reform. we spent, as you know, four months working with the house republican leadership this summer on a way to get a balanced plan with comprehensive individual tax reform that raise revenue alongside substantial savings in medicare and medicaid, and we found in that process, frankly, that you were not really there yet, not quite ready, so for that reason, we decided to lay out some broad principles -- >> i do not even know how to respond to that. >> richard benedetto, what is your reaction after watching that exchange? >> it shows you that paul ryan is a policy wonk. he wants to deal in details.

he wants to deal in facts and figures. he likes to do that. you can do that to a certain degree in these debates, but you have got to be fast, get them in, make them punchy, and get out of their -- there. one thing we are forgetting is that there is an incumbent here. the vice president is the incumbent. in debates, incumbents usually have records to defend. the moderator's job is to ask questions to deal with the performance of the person who is the incumbent. we did not see that in the presidential debate because of the fact that jim lehrer wanted to keep it wide open. rather than ask pointed questions about what the president has done over the last four years, he asked about their differences on taxes and social security, and we did not get that kind of contrast.

i wonder if the debate moderator this time will ask questions of biden that will cause him to have to deal with what happened over the last four years. he may have to do what romney did -- ryan may have to do what romney did. >> following the debate last week, the commission on presidential debates issued this statement, following criticism of jim lehrer's performance in the first debate. robert watson, you were quite

critical of jim lehrer last week. will we see a difference this week? >> i suspect we will. if i could quickly jump on the previous comment, i think we know that joe biden and paul ryan are both tough-nosed guys who can play pretty effectively, but what is interesting is they are so completely different. when joe biden first took his seat in the senate, paul ryan was about three years old. paul ryan has to be careful about looking disrespectful to someone a lot older than him. paul ryan, as was correctly noted earlier, tends to be kind of a policy wonk. that sometimes does not resonate. it did not resonate with obama earlier. joe biden like to connect in the gut. scranton joe likes to talk to the audience. we are going to see a completely different styles. i was very critical of jim lehrer in blogs and commentary. people have been critical of the

commission over presidential debates for years. they have run all of the debates since 1988. i am not one of those scholars or commentators that is critical of the commission. i think the commission has done a fantastic job. we have been able to have three presidential and one vice- presidential debate almost every four years. debate questions have been fair. formats have been legitimate. the commission has done a good job in picking their moderators. we have had diversity in moderators. several women and african- americans have moderated. two of the four moderators' this time are women. this is jim lehrer's " the date. he did a good job in his previous one. -- this is jim lehrer's fourth debate. i was not one of those folks who was critical when he was selected. however, his performance was utterly embarrassing. it is hard to say anything good about it. he even paused several times as a tight -- as if he could not

remember romney or obama's names. he allowed obama to run overtime on a lot of his answers, to the point where the sixth group of questions -- he basically did not have time to get to that. also, he did not call mitt romney on the several times during the debate where he said something different than what he said during the 22 republican primary debates. lehrer did not say, "governor romney, this does not match with what you have been saying. explain yourself." the role of the moderator is in part to get out of the way and allow the candidates to have a conversation and a meaningful debate, but if they're too long winded or being disingenuous, the role of the moderator is to police the debate and make sure that they are the moderator, not allowing obama or ronnie to moderate. anyway you look at it, it was a tarnished mark on jim lehrer's legacy.

i do not think any of the of the moderators will allow that. they are hard-nose and the issue, and they probably washed with embarrassment as you and i did the lever performance -- they are hard-nose and note the issues -- they are hard-nosed and know the issues. >> another moment from the 2008 debate with vice president joe biden and sarah palin. >> governor, you said in july that someone would have to explain to you exactly what it is the vice president does every day. you, senator, said you would not be vice president under any circumstances. maybe this is just what was going on at the time. tell us now, going forward, what you think the vice presidency is worth now. >> in my commentary, it was a lame attempt at a joke, and

yours was, too, because nobody got it. of course i know what the vice president does. >> they did not get yours or mine? >> mine, too. they did not get mine. of course we know what the vice president does, which is not only to preside over the senate, and we would take that position seriously also. and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure, too, that our president understands what our strengths are. john mccain and i have had good conversations about where i would lead with his agenda, and that is energy independence in america and reform of government overall and then working with families of children with special needs. that is near and dear to my heart also. in those arenas, john mccain has already tapped me and said, "that is where i want you. i want you to lead," and i have said that i cannot wait to work

with him. >> i do not know of any government program that john is supporting. not early education. the reason no child was left behind is the money is left behind. with regard to the role of vice president, i had a long talk, as a sure the governor did, with her principal, with a rock. i have a history of getting things done in the united states senate. -- with barack. i have a history of getting things done in united states senate, as john mccain nos. i would be the point person on getting things done. when asked if i wanted a portfolio, my response was no, but for rock obama indicated he wanted me with him to help him govern, so every decision he makes, i will be sitting with him in the room to give him advice -- but for rock -- but barack obama indicated he wanted

me in the room to help him govern. i look forward to working with barack and playing a very constructive role in his presidency, bringing about the kind of change this country needs. >> from 2008, in st. louis, the vice presidential debate, robert watson, let me pick up on something we discussed earlier, which is how the role of vice president has changed, and richard benedetto's point that in this case, the vice president has a record to run on. >> the role has changed dramatically. typically, the vice president is not given a portfolio, per se. they sort of serve as ombudsmen, and they our point person in several different areas. there are several examples -- under bush i, dan quayle played

a role in regulatory relief. when bill clinton was president, al gore played a significant role in reforming the efficiency and bureaucracy, the layers of government. more recently, under george w. bush, dick cheney played a role in energy with reaching out to the energy industry and so forth. biden has played a leading role in iraq and afghanistan war is, how to withdraw troops and refigure the flow of the war. the vice presidency has changed over time. case in point, when warren g. harding died in california of a heart attack, they could not even find calvin coolidge. of course, the punch line here is it is a shame they ever did. but the vice president would stay home. they did not even go to washington, d.c., in many cases. now they live in the naval observatory, but the first one to do so was walter mondale and it was not until the 1970's that the vice president even stayed in the city.

there were no major airways in, roadways in, and they finally found coolidge, and there was no justice of the peace around. his father was basically a notary, and he took the oath with his father with his hand on the family bible in the living room. the role of the vice president has changed considerably, and i would give credit to both romney and obama for picking a vice presidential nominee that not only could help them get elected but could help them govern. i think these are both, to a degree, responsible selections in that respect. i think no matter who wins, we will see either ryan for biden -- or biden play a significant role over the next four years. >> we are previewing the upcoming debate in danville, kentucky, and throwing in some vice-presidential trivia all along the way. let me share with you one of the

mamas from 2010 during the height of the health-care debate, a meeting that took place at blair house across the street from the white house, and comments by then congressman ryan on the health care bill and the vice-president. >> the bill has 10 years of tax increases, about $500 billion, with 10 years of medicare cuts, about $500 billion, to pay for six years of spending. what is the true 10-year cost of this bill? in 10 years, that is $2.3 trillion. it does a couple of other things -- it takes $52 billion in higher social security tax revenues and counts them as offsets, but that is really reserved for social security. either we are double counting them or we do not intend on paying the social security benefits. it takes $72 billion and claims money from the class act, the long-term care insurance program, and takes the money from premiums that are designed for that benefit and instead counts them as offsets. the senate budget committee chairman said this is a ponzi

scheme that would make bernie madoff proud. when you look at the medicare cuts, this bill essentially treats medicare like a piggy bank. it raised $500 billion out of medicare, not to shore up medicare solvency, but to spend on this new government program. when you take a look at what this does, according to the chief actuary of medicare -- he says as much as 20% of medicare providers will go out of business or will have to stop seeing medicare beneficiaries. millions of seniors who have chosen medicare advantage will lose the coverage that they now enjoy. you cannot say you are using this money to extend medicare solvency and also offset the cost of this new program -- that is double counting. when you look at all of this, strip out the double counting and what i would call these gimmicks, the full 10-year cost of this bill is a $460 billion deficit. the second cost has a $1.7

trillion deficit. the most cynical give a guy in this bill is something we probably all agree on -- we do not think we should cut doctors' 21% next year. we stopped those cuts from occurring every year the last seven years. according to your numbers, this costs $371 billion. it was in the first iteration of all these bills, but because it was a big price tag and made the score look bad, that provision was taken out, and it has been going on in stand-alone legislation. but ignoring these costs does not remove them from the backs of taxpayers. hiding spending does not reduce spending. when you take a look at all of this, it just does not add up. i will finish with the cost curve. are we bending the cost curve down or up? if you look in your own chief actuary at medicare, we are bending it up. he is claiming we are going up $221 billion, adding more to the fiscally unstable situation we

have. when you look at this, it is really deeper than deficits or the budget gimmicks or the actuarial analysis. there really is a difference between us, and we have been talking about how much we agree on different issues, but there really is a difference between us, and it is basically this -- we do not think the government should be in control of all of this. we want people to be in control. at the end of the day, that is the big difference. we have offered black -- lots of ideas all last year and all this year. we agree the status quo is unsustainable. it has got to get fixed. it is bankrupting families and our government. it is hurting families with pre- existing conditions. we all want to fix this, but we do not think that this is the answer to the solution, and all the analysis we get proves that point. i will simply say this, and i respectfully disagree with the vice president about what the american people are or are not saying or whether we are qualified to speak on their behalf.

we are all representatives of the american people. we all do town hall meetings and talk to our constituents. i've got to tell you -- the american people are engaged. if you think they want a government takeover of health care, i would respectfully submit you are not listening to them. but we simply want to do is start over, work on a clean sheet of paper, moved through these issues step-by-step, fix them, and bring down health-care costs, not raise them. that is basically the point. >> february, 2010, richard benedetto, that was congressman paul ryan talking directly to the president, vice president, and members of the cabinet. in 2008, sarah palin had to convince voters she was up to the job. that is not the case with paul ryan. he knows the issues. how does he translate that into something people can relate to? >> that is the big problem for him. he has a tendency to be very numbers-oriented and legislative-oriented. he talks like a capitol hill denison, which he is.

he has to try to find a way to talk directly to the american people and make it understandable without using all those numbers and the jargon of office statistics. he has got to make it clear what it is he will do and what it is his plan will do and what it will not do. one of the things he is able to do, as we can see in that last clip, is talk directly to the president and disagree with him, using these numbers and statistics. he is not afraid to the -- to do that. he will probably do the same thing with joe biden, but again, he will probably have to back off on all those numbers and try to make the main point that he has to make. the problem here is that if he comes off too wonkish -- and joe biden will be joe biden. he has a way of personally connecting with people. as a result, he will contrast

himself, and if he is smart, he will play off of that if ryan gets too wonkish. >> in 2007, brian williams asked then senator joe biden how he would deal with some of the tough questions that would come up in the presidential race when he was running for the nomination. >> center biden -- senator biden, words have in the past got you in trouble -- words that were borrowed and words that some found it full. the "los angeles times," said in addition to his uncontrollable brought -- verbosity, by then -- biden is a gaffe machine. can you reassure the american people you have the speaking skills needed to reassure the american people? >> yes. [laughter] >> thank you, senator biden. [laughter]

>> from 2007, robert watson, on both points, paul ryan's points and joe biden, who has been known to make a gaffe or two. >> he has had his share of gas, but what is amazing -- he has had his share of gaffes, but if you are in congress to long, and ryan has been in congress essentially his whole adult life, they tend to speak in congress-speak, legislatese, and the american people do not understand that. i think we will hear that directed at biden and indirectly at obama during the debate, but paul ryan cannot talk about actuaries and cost curves. the average person -- all of us, our eyes would roll back. it sounds like some economics professor. he has got to put it a different

way. what is incredible about biden, even though he spent his whole professional life in congress, he has a way of connecting with people and speaking in a way that the average person understands, and he makes that gut-level connection. the virtue and vice of joe biden on the same -- he is very likable. everyone in the senate, if there is no media around, republicans and democrats, will tell you that joe biden is one of the most favored members in the chamber, but the beauty and the virtue and vice of joe biden is he does not use a teleprompter law. he is fresh and real, but these days when you have all-intrusive media coverage, he occasionally says something wrong. he has handled some of these gaffes reasonably well. in 2008, he made that comment about barack obama, trying to compliment him but it was tinge

with racist overtones, called him a clean and articulate african-american or something like that, but nobody would suggest to joe biden harbors any ill will toward any particular group, and his record is just the opposite. he also weathered some storms over borrowing a speech from the labor leader in england and plagiarizing, not attributing credit. in all cases, he seemed to brush it off and come back and be scranton joe, the guy we all know. ditto with his handling of sarah palin in 2008. it was a tough order. he had to portray her as someone who was not ready for prime time, but he did not want to be too hard, or he would appear to be bullying someone who was a lot younger. the clip you showed your viewers was wonderful where biden had

that wonderful sense of comic timing where he just said "yes," in response to whether he is too verbose. but i think the thing that i would come back to is these candidates have such different styles and different approaches. it will be interesting to watch them. the charge for biden is not to make a gaffe, to come strong and hold romney and ryan accountable for what they said, given the record, which obama has done a poor job of doing. he has to say osama bin laden is dead, general motors is hiring, our troops are out of iraq, and we are doing stem cell research, something like that. on the other hand, paul ryan has to avoid being too wonkish, or potentially patronizing and condescending, which he can at times be, but he has got to stay on the attack and pick up where mitt romney so effectively left off a few days ago.

>> people think that remark about "can i call you joe" was part of the debate, and it is not. it was made when they were introduced and they both met. >> we have that. let's watch it. it is only about 20 seconds. it was the opening moment from the debate in st. louis, missouri. [cheers and applause] >> nice to meet you. hey, can i call you joe?" thank you. thank you. >> and then the debate began. >> yes, a to was not part of the debate itself. -- it was not part of the debate itself. it was an aside made before, but

now it has become sort of the folklore that she did it in the middle of the debate, put him on the spots. them in rehearsal, she kept calling him -- >> in rehearsal, she kept calling him obiden. one more quick call ryan, to show you the substance of the candidate on the vice presidential ticket. >> i am hearing some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying, "we just cannot afford these tax cuts." let's look at it. only in washington is not raising taxes on people considered a tax cut. what we are talking about here is not cutting taxes. we are talking about keeping taxes where they are and preventing tax increases. second point -- we, meaning the government, cannot afford this? whose money is this after all? is all the money that is made in america washington's money,

governments money, or is it the people's money who earned it? i hear all this money about the death tax, the estate tax -- this is going to give a windfall to these people, this money going to this privileged people who built these businesses, made this money. it is their money. which is it? do we have a country built on equal natural rights where you can make the most of your life, get up, work hard, take risks, become successful, create jobs, growth businesses, do well, and success, and, yes, pass it onto your kids? what on earth is wrong with that? that is the american dream. to my friends on my side of the aisle who simply do not like some of the spending in this bill, i do not like it either, so let's cut the spending next year when we are in charge. there is junk in the tax code.

everybody agrees with this. this is advancing some of the junk in the tax code, and what i say to my friends on this side of the aisle, next year, let's get rid of that when we are in charge. but right now, let's not hit the american people with a massive tax increase. if we want to get the spending under control, if we want to get our spending going -- if we want to get our deficit going down, we need to cut spending and grow the economy. we need prosperity in this country. we need job creation. we need people going from collecting unemployment to having a job and paying taxes so the revenues can reduce the deficit. if we raise taxes, even the congressional budget office is telling us if this bill fails and these tax increases continues, we will lose 1.25 million jobs next year. do we want to do that? lower tax rates gives us economic growth. those -- low tax rates makes us

competitive in international economy. lower tax rates allow businesses to plan. is this a growth package? no, it is not. you know why? because it still proposes to move this uncertainty forward. it is only a two-year extension. we are not talking about a pro- quo economic package, but we are talking about preventing a destructive economic package from being inflicted on the american people -- we are not talking about a pro-growth economic package. do we want to make these permit? you bet we do, and that is exactly what we will be advancing, but the last thing we want to do is inject more uncertainty, raise taxes. we need economic growth. we need spending cuts. that is exactly what we intend on doing, and i think that is why the voters sent us here. let's clean up the stuff we do not like in this bill next year,

and let's make sure that when people go to christmas, they know they are not going to have a massive tax increase five days later. madam speaker, this is a bill that is necessary to prevent our economy from getting worse. this is not a bill that will turn it around. next year, let's pass the policies that will turn this economy around. with that, i yield back my time. >> congressman paul ryan from the floor of the house of representatives. we will hear that in some variation in danville, ky. >> he will have to convince it quite a bit and sharpen it up because it is rambling. it is not the way you want to hear a debater talk about an issue and make a point. he will have to convince that down to about 25 seconds and make it clear to people. i think that is the big challenge for paul ryan, to be able to convince -- condensed

and sharpen his message each time he wants to make a point -- to be able to convince -- to be able to condense and sharpen his message each time he wants to make a point. then you have a guide on scoring the debate -- >> you have a guide on scoring the debates. did the candidates do what they needed to do? did the candidate control the agenda? the content of the answers. did they show leadership? were there any zingers or blunders? also the opening statement and closing remarks. robert watson, your thoughts. >> i spent much of my 22-year career as a big advocate for civic education, so when we at lynn university found out we were hosting this debate, we wanted to use it as an engine to drive civic education. we had mock debates for high

schoolers. right before i came here, we had some fifth graders put together an exhibit. it has to be something like a boxing official, to try to give ground 12 obama and around two to romney -- around one -- round one to obama and round towo to romney. i tried to come up with a rubric to be able to do that. i came up with this scorecard as something that our students on campus and area high-school kids are able to use this for hosting what parties -- watch parties. i am handing the same one to c-

span if you want to post it on your website. i passed it out around the country so students can try to figure out who won the debate and who lost or more importantly what constitutes a good or bad debate performance. >> robert watson is a professor at lynn university, site of the fourth and final debate in this election year, the third presidential debate. thank you very much for being with us. richard benedetto, longtime reporter at "usa today," thank you for joining us as well. a reminder -- c-span policy debate held will allow you to keep track of these key debates in this campaign -- c-span's debate hub. it is all on our website at c- span.org/campaign2012. >> four years ago, we went

through the worst financial crisis since the great depression. millions of jobs were lost. the automotive industry was on the brink of collapse. because of the resilience and the determination of the american people, we have begun to fight our way back. >> the president has a view very similar to the view he had when he ran four years ago -- that a bigger government, spending more, taxing more, regulating more, if you will, trickle-down government, would work. that will not restore vitality to get america working again. >> c-span has video of last week's presidential debate. you can search and watched by topic. it is also the only place where you can see live, behind-the- scenes coverage of each debate. watch the spin room live with political reporters and other viewers. here is a look at